Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2011-07-22 Version:1

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

270 |

538 |

Dem

185

Rep

353

Ind

0

Confidence States Won

270 |

538 |

Dem

185

Rep

266

Ind

0

Tos

87

State Pick-ups

Gain

Loss

Hold

Net Gain

ST

CD

EV

ST

CD

EV

ST

CD

EV

Dem

0

0

0

-14

-2

-174

15

1

185

-174

Rep

+14

+2

+174

0

0

0

22

2

179

+174

Ind

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Prediction Score (max Score = 112)

Score

State Wins

State Percentages

CD Wins

CD Percentages

69

39

24

4

2

Analysis
No Analysis Entered

Member Comments

By:a Person (I-DEU) 2011-07-22 @ 13:48:38

Who is on the Republican ticket?

By:Twindad46 (R-IL) 2011-07-22 @ 20:52:24

It won't matter. 0bama is toast.

By:a Person (I-DEU) 2011-07-23 @ 00:55:01

No, he is not.

By:CR (--MO) 2011-07-23 @ 10:40:11

I rather like this map!

By:Olawakandi (D-IL) 2011-07-23 @ 12:14:47

Whoever wins will barely get to 271.

By:tmthforu94 (R-KS) 2011-07-23 @ 13:10:18

I think it's hard to determine how the dynamics will be - it could go 400 EV's either way, though at this point, I think there's a greater chance Romney would get there than Obama.

By:BenNebbich (O-NAM) 2011-07-23 @ 13:37:19

Hi,

I see it nearly the same way at the moment.

But I still believe, it depends on the candidates.

obama has still a chance.

By:d-russ (I-OH) 2011-08-19 @ 20:58:09

Maine will be redistricting this year and that would make it easier for a Republican to win the Second Congressional District and the 1 electoral vote in Maine. I also see Washington as a lean Democratic state. The fact that Dino Rossi came as close as he did to winning that senate seat as well the fact that Maria Cantwell is at risk in polls makes that one a tossup.

At this point, a Person, I see Romney as the likely nominee. Of course, I've seen Romney as the likely nominee since McCain lost in 2008. The GOP is the closest you get to Monarchists in America, and there is an established line of succession from which the deviations have been very rare. That would indicate a Romney nomination.

While I'd like to agree with your comment, Twindad46, I do think that Obama still has a chance to retain the White House. Admittedly though, I think Obama's chances become more remote with each passing day. One thing that would advance his chances, however, would be if the Republicans were to nominate someone seen as little more capable than the current Oval Office occupant.

Thanks for the compliment, ConservRep. I rather like your map, too. Yours shows the real danger to Obama of losing the White House with the switch of just six states - five of which the Democrats won by their most narrow margins last time. That, and the total collapse of the Obama Democrats in New Hampshire, is what is making this Administration sweat a lot these days.

Olawakandi, I'm not sure you're right about how tight it will be. Although I also disagree with tmthforu94 that it could be over 400 electoral votes either way. While it is conceivable that Obama could lose big, it will still be very difficult to defeat him in the to ten states he carried (along with the District of Columbia and Maine's 1st District) by more than 20 points in 2008. That gives him a reasonably solid base of 150 electoral votes. Similarly, it's hard to see how the Republican nominee can fall below 164 electoral votes. The Obama team has already acknowledged they're not likely to try for Indiana again. Even if they make the plays they are now claiming they are planning to make for Arizona and Georgia, that still leaves the GOP nominee with 20 states and 164 electoral votes that will go largely uncontested.

I agree, BenNebbich, that it does depend on the candidates. But, these things have a way of working themselves out. Regardless of who the Republicans ultimately nominate, the choice will be seen as plausible by a sufficient number of Americans to ensure the race is competitive. Unlike in 1996 and 2008, the GOP nominee is not likely to be seen by significant percentages of the electorate as being too old to serve.

I wouldn't classify the Evergreen State as a toss-up just yet, d-russ. Remember, it hasn't gone for the Republican nominee since the Reagan landslide of 1984 (a winning streak for the Democrats it shares with Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, behind only Minnesota, which a Republican nominee last won in 1972). Dislodging Obama from there won't be easy, and the GOP is likely to focus on Minnesota and Wisconsin as more promising territory. As for Maine, the recently approved Congressional redistricting only makes Maine 2 slightly more Republican. The race would have to be exceedingly close for the GOP to secure that single district, at which point it likely wouldn't need it to win.

By:CR (--MO) 2011-10-08 @ 23:14:45

Hey Ryer great comments and I largely agree with you on pretty much all the points above. I'm glad you picked up the idea that my map holds. Yes it is a map where Herman Cain is the theoretical nominee but I also stated that it could serve as a fairly generic Republican map as well. I think this will be a very competitive election, especially with the economy in the shape its in.

The only thing I'm not sold on yet is Romney as the nominee. I think he'd do fine and yes he is next in line for the nomination if GOP tradition is followed. However, our party has been seeing a lot of changes lately and I'm not so sure of any candidate at this point. Who knows what could happen. Not that you said Romney would absolutely be the nominee but I just feel the air is ripe for change, pardon the pun.

Anyway good observations.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-10-09 @ 12:24:07

Well, I do not know if ROmney will survive the GOP marathon, and I think MN is Democratic no matter what this year....

however, it remains to be seen if Obama can eek out a victory or more...basically he is running against GOP and the economy, tough odds but incumbents usually win...I could see this as similar to 1916 where Wilson eeekked out a narrow victory over Hughes...

lots of time between now and November 2012...

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-10-09 @ 14:06:19

This map way underestimates Obama. At the very least he's guaranteed probably 47% of the vote and 200 electoral votes due to the polarization of today's environment and is probably favored to win given the polls.

By:CR (--MO) 2011-10-09 @ 18:25:04

Well I don't know what percentage of the popular vote he is likely to get but I'd have to agree with Al that Obama or any Democrat for that matter is guaranteed at least 200 electoral votes. Democrats being solid in California, Illinois, New York, and a couple other places just makes that a reality. As to the rest, I think anything can happen at this point.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-10-15 @ 19:01:53

Thanks for commenting on my map, dnul222 and albaleman. And thanks for commenting again, ConservRep.

I don't think Minnesota will go for the Democrats no matter what, dnul222. As a current resident of Virginia, I thought the state was reasonably safe for the GOP going into 2008, relying on the party's 10-in-a-row winning streak. Events proved my assumptions wrong.

I think Minnesota is very much in play this year, as it was in 2000 and 2004. I would also be surprised if the GOP didn't take another shot at the state, as it holds as much potential for a pickup as neighboring Wisconsin and only a little less than Iowa. Obama would have to emulate Wilson's luck in 1916 to pull this one off, but Wilson was not enduring a lengthy economic downturn. Instead, the 1916 campaign was dominated by foreign policy, something that occurs only rarely in U.S. elections and invariably favors the incumbent.

Admittedly, there is a lot of time between now and November 2012. I'm just not sure there's enough time to have the economy booming again, and am fairly certain that a variety of policies advanced by the current administration inhibit the possibility of a dramatic turnaround.

I can understand why you might think my map understates Obama's strengths, albaleman. But it's hard to find a president in the modern era facing these kind of poll numbers in the year before the election who survived. And while I certainly think he's capable of winning 47% in the election, that result would still likely give the GOP nominee well over 300 Electoral Votes.

You might want to consider, albaleman and ConservRep, that if the Republican nominee is Romney and he carries his ancestral state of Michigan, and, as albaleman noted, Obama is held to around 47%, it's pretty easy to see how the President fails to break 200 Electoral Votes.

Last Edit: 2011-10-15 @ 19:03:55

By:CR (--MO) 2011-10-15 @ 23:50:08

I like your thinking Ryer and again I find very little conflict with your last post. However, I do think that our chances of carrying Minnesota are slim. I would love to be wrong and hope your analysis of the situation proves accurate. Still your map shows the basic Democratic state I believe are "off-limits" to the GOP. If you add Minnesota and Maine-2 to the Democratic column you'll come up with 196 electoral votes, which is were I got my 200 from in the first place. Not really that important but I thought you'd like to know were I got the number from. Note that excludes Michigan in the case of a Romney scenario.

Last Edit: 2011-10-15 @ 23:50:51

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-10-16 @ 10:32:49

Let me give you some local color which has MN in the Democratic column...
We had a government shutdown caused by the legislature not wanting to balance the budget without fiscal gimmicks...words of the indpendent governor candidate in 2008. The government was shut down and caused undue hardship for the local population and so the independents currently favor Democrats as a result....it is on this basis that I say the Dems have the state...I doubt if the GOP will waste much money here when they have a far better shot at Iowa and Wisconsin....I expect the Dems to carry Michigan, MN and Illinois minimally in the midwest...thats 44 votes

Cailfornia and hawaii are another 59= 103

Maryland, Delaware, DC and New York are another 45= 148

Massacusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont are another 18= for a minimum total of 166

then include NJ, COnnecticut and Maine like you did for another 25 and you get 191 without a sweat...

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-10-16 @ 13:38:55

I agree that Minnesota will go Dem. Add New Mexico and you're at 200. That's an absolute worst-case scenario. However, for a more realistic worst case scenario I think one should also add Colorado and the Maine EV and probably either Iowa or Wisconsin.

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-10-16 @ 13:47:00

"But it's hard to find a president in the modern era facing these kind of poll numbers in the year before the election who survived. "

I've stated this again and again and again and I guess I'll state it again. The reason the President's approvals are down is dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats. But they'll vote for him in a heartbeat over any Republican, so his approvals don't matter as much, and head-to-head matchups with Republicans prove this. He also has a lot of advantages, most notably changing demographics that are making it harder and harder for Republicans to win the White House.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-10-16 @ 15:57:44

I completely agree with my fellow MN writer. Many Dems including myself rate the President poorly on his handling of some issues but will we abandon him to ROmney or others-hardly....so I would easily put 4-6% back on Obama totals based on the liberal returners or moderate ones like me...

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-10-22 @ 02:04:13

Thanks for commenting again, dnul222 and albaleman.

Is it just me, or have I struck a nerve among my DFL friends? You two sound like so many of my fellow Old Dominion Republicans did in late 2007 when the Democrats were talking up competing in our state the following year. Virginia Republicans were confident that history and a variety of home state issues were on their side. It didn't work out that way. I doubt it will for Obama, as well, and - for the time being - I'll stick with my call for the Gopher State.

I think you might want to consider consulting the recent national poll by Democracy Corps (or just about any recent national poll, for that matter), albaleman. Dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats is not the core of the President's approval problem; dissatisfaction among independents is.

While I concede that Iowa, which Obama carried by a smaller margin than Minnesota in 2008, and Wisconsin, which Obama carried by a larger margin, are more likely to flip to the Republican nominee in 2012, I would argue that the difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin in this case is not that great. As a result, I fully expect the GOP to make a play for the state - particularly if Romney is the nominee.

Finally, as for your Electoral Vote calculations, dnul222, I would dispute your certainty (as well as your addition, which I think contained a small error). The states you cited as certainties for the President actually add up to 193 Electoral Votes (somehow you dropped 2 among Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan). Obviously, we disagree about about Minnesota (10 votes). But, I would also contest your certainty over Michigan (especially if Romney is the Republican nominee) and Maine CD2 (17 combined votes). So while you set the floor for the Democrats at 193 Electoral Votes, I see it as being considerably lower. Just using your "Safe Democrat" states as a guide, I believe that floor would be 166.

I thought long about New Mexico, albaleman. My problem with handing that to Obama is two-fold. First, history would indicate that New Mexico, which only sided with the loser of the popular vote once (1976) and with the loser of the election twice (1976 and 2000) in its history, tends to end up in the winners column. Second, Obama appears to be having more difficulty in winning the Hispanic electorate by the same margins he did in 2008. That spells trouble for him in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-10-22 @ 11:44:01

"I would argue that the difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin in this case is not that great."

lol. The difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin according to PPP is 10 points! The Independents are furious at the Republicans thanks to the shutdown debacle and the most popular politician in the state is up for re-election. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Obama increase his margin here from 2008, that's what the polls show. As far as your comparison to Virginia 2008, I'll be happy to explain the huge difference between the two. Though I do find it funny that you use that as an important example yet had it Lean Republican in your final prediction of 2008. First of all, Virginia had been trending Dem for a time thanks to growth in heavily Democratic Northern Virginia. Minnesota has also had much of its growth coming in the conservative suburbs and exurbs - but that growth has failed to survive the recession. Even when that growth was fast and furious, Minnesota hasn't really trended Republican. The low point for Democrats was 2000, when Al Gore was nearly upset here. But then Kerry carried it by a larger margin than in 2004 and it might've trended Dem in 2008 had Republicans not held their convention here. Also McCain targeted it heavily. That never made much sense to me given how he pulled out of Wisconsin, but I think a big part of it was that the Republicans were trying to get Norm Coleman across the finish line.

"Dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats is not the core of the President's approval problem; dissatisfaction among independents is."

I think dissatisfaction among liberal Democrats may not be the biggest part of his low approvals, but it's what caused his most recent slide that has everybody crowing about how vulnerable he is. But the reality among Independents is that they're mad at everybody. Obama, Romney, Democrats in congress, Republicans in congress, their governor - you name it, they're mad at it. So I think a more important barometer of how he's doing is head-to-head polling.

"First, history would indicate that New Mexico, which only sided with the loser of the popular vote once (1976) and with the loser of the election twice (1976 and 2000) in its history, tends to end up in the winners column. Second, Obama appears to be having more difficulty in winning the Hispanic electorate by the same margins he did in 2008."

I love how people make these assertions without looking at the actual polls. Hispanics, though they may not love Obama, will vote for him by resounding margins over any GOP candidate as long as the bilious anti-immigration rhetoric continues. That's just a fact and is backed up by poll after poll after poll. Obama will work very hard to get them out to the polls and, though their turnout will be slightly lower, that will be at least partially offset by the fact that there will be more of them. Again another state that's trending Dem and will be a Strong Dem state soon - if it's not already, thanks to growth in minority voters.

Last Edit: 2011-10-22 @ 13:40:33

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-10-22 @ 12:23:23

I can certainly agree with my fellow MN-maybe we are becoming the MN Twins like Burger and Blackmunn were called at the start of Blackmunn's term.

Anyway I certainly agree with him that our most popular elected official is up for a landslide win, most independents were turned off by the government shutdown and blame the GOP for it. They now lean heavily for Obama at this moment. thus a larger win is very possible for Obama here even while things are close in Wisconisin. MN usually leads Wisconsin by 5% points in trending DFL...

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-13 @ 02:43:40

Thanks for commenting again, albaleman and dnul222. I think you may be the "nice" twin, dnul222.

I think, albaleman, you make an assumption that, historically, has shown only a tenuous (if any) correlation: That the current popularity of state parties and officials will necessarily affect the outcome of the Presidential contest in that state.

As for the healthy ratings currently enjoyed by Senator Klobuchar, while it is mentioned at each federal election, there has yet to be any real evidence of "reverse coattails" in any presidential election. If there were, Ford might have carried Missouri and Pennsylvania in 1976, saving America from the dreadful four years of the Carter Administration. And if that were the case, no Republican presidential nominee would have carried North Dakota over the last two decades when either of their two Democratic Senators were cruising to reelection in a presidential year. But, GOP presidential nominees carried North Dakota in 1992, 2000, and 2004.

While you have chosen to focus on the activities in Saint Paul, I look a little further north to the 2010 congressional results in the Eighth District. The problems for Obama in a region key to Democrats in developing a statewide majority suggests that a win for the President might not be as easy as you think. Indeed, I doubt the White House is so confident that they will put the state in the win column just yet.

Keep in mind, it's not as though I think that Minnesota will provide the 270th Electoral Vote for the GOP ticket. More like the 338th or 348th.

As for the PPP polls, yes I read the polls from that North Carolina firm that markets itself to Democratic candidates and has a contractual arrangement with Daily Kos. I suspect the Obama campaign is a little more concerned with the recent Survey USA poll, which showed Obama failing to reach 50% against any potential GOP nominee other than Bachmann (who really isn't a potential nominee at this point). A 45%-to-39% lead for the President over Romney isn't likely to deter the GOP from making a play for the Gopher State.

As for New Mexico, why do Democrats always imply that Hispanics are the only constituency in that state and they will vote with unanimity for the Democratic nominee? Bush carried the state in 2004 (and may very well have done so in 2000). Hispanic voters are not so overwhelmingly opposed to Republicans as to make the state out-of-reach to the GOP. Expect it to be contested, again. And, don't be surprised it goes with the winner, again.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-11-13 @ 05:50:54

Yes but I am going on local polls done traditionally here by a political science professor from St. Cloud State and are fairly accurate snapshots...

I see a minimal win for Obama here of 5%....with ROmney the nominee-polls showed this state going DFL even with our former GOP governor on the ticket.

We will see but thanks for the respectful retorts to our assumptions and analysis.

And my 2 vote error was on Michigan counting 14 instead of 16...most have thought of NJ instead.

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-11-13 @ 12:52:11

"That the current popularity of state parties and officials will necessarily affect the outcome of the Presidential contest in that state."

It certainly can't hurt. At any rate, the polls clearly show Obama with a pretty big, probably insurmountable lead. The public really soured on the Tea Party-influenced Republicans early here, with the shutdown, and Klobuchar makes a very nice face for the DFL.

"I look a little further north to the 2010 congressional results in the Eighth District."

And how brilliant was that? Cravaack has now become quite a unpopular drag on the Republicans. Two problems with thinking that was a bad sign for Obama: 2010 was an absolutely ghastly year for Democrats (Midterms are always bad for the President's party, and the bad economy really hurt), while 2012 will most likely be a neutral environment, and Oberstar pretty much took the election for granted and thus was caught flat-footed. I think an Obama win in MN of 10-15 points is likely. Don't forget that even in 2010, Democrats won ALL of the statewide races.

"As for the PPP polls, yes I read the polls from that North Carolina firm that markets itself to Democratic candidates and has a contractual arrangement with Daily Kos. "

Hack fail. PPP has proven itself to be the most accurate pollster statistically. It even has a slight statistical bias towards the REPUBLICANS.

"I suspect the Obama campaign is a little more concerned with the recent Survey USA poll, which showed Obama failing to reach 50% against any potential GOP nominee other than Bachmann (who really isn't a potential nominee at this point). "

SUSA has proven itself to be a junk pollster in MN. Just look at its record:

In 2008 it showed Obama leading McCain by 3 (!) in its last poll before the election. Obama won it by 10.

In 2008 it showed Coleman leading by 5 (!!) in its last poll before the election. Franken won.

I could go on and on. They don't know how to poll Minnesota and always are much friendlier to Republicans than the other pollsters here in Minnesota.

"As for New Mexico, why do Democrats always imply that Hispanics are the only constituency in that state and they will vote with unanimity for the Democratic nominee? Bush carried the state in 2004 (and may very well have done so in 2000). Hispanic voters are not so overwhelmingly opposed to Republicans as to make the state out-of-reach to the GOP."

They aren't the only constituency, but they make up more than half of the population there and are by far the fastest growing part of the population there. No Republican can possibly hope to win there without getting strong Latino support. Bush was different. He had special appeal to Latinos, largely because he supported a path to citizenship, aka what those on the right call "amnesty", something no Republican, not even Huntsman, has dared to support this time. He won 40% of the Latino both times (far more than the Republicans won even in 2010). Good luck winning it if many in your party continue to spout the bilious anti-immigration talk.

I've come to the conclusion that you are not only the "nice" twin, dnul222, but the more realistic one as well. Predicting "a minimal win for Obama [in Minnesota] of 5%" strikes me as realistic.

I think our disagreement involves how we see 2012 overall. I see it as an election much closer to what occured in 2000 and 2004, and not close to what occured in 2008. I suspect that albaleman views the 2008 map as the starting point. I do not.

In 2000 and 2004, the Democrats carried Minnesota by 2.5% and 3.5%, respectively. I think the state will be targeted by the Republicans this year (regardless of whether Pawlenty is on the ticket), and that - if the GOP wins nationally by better than 52% to 47% - that Minnesota will be in their column for the first time since 1972.

As for New Mexico, albaleman, you need to check the latest census figures. Hispanics do not yet constitute "more than half of the population there".

And concerning less than accurate polling in Minnesota, I'd give that award to the Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll. People are still giggling over its predictions in the 2002 contests and its demonstrated bias over decades.

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-11-13 @ 21:17:10

"I suspect that albaleman views the 2008 map as the starting point."

Maybe you ought to actually look at my map. It's very close, not at all like 2008, though a 2008-style win may be possible, as it appears that the only Obama '08 state that is clearly in Romney's column is Indiana. All the other Obama '08 states are tossups at best for Romney. And certainly if the polls hold up, a win in Minnesota for Obama of 10-15 points is likely. I didn't say, however, that a win of 5 points was implausible, though the GOP would have to win by a pretty nice margin nationally. The public, and Independents in particular, have really soured on the GOP and are treating 2010 like it was a mistake. But as I pointed out, even in 2010 Democrats pulled off a sweep of the statewide races. And there's no doubt that SUSA has been a Republican leaning pollster in Minnesota. Just look at its record.

"As for New Mexico, albaleman, you need to check the latest census figures."

Okay, so I was slightly off. Hispanics make up 46.3% of the population in NM. Pretty darn close, and well up from 2000. There's more Hispanics in NM than whites. As I said, it's just about impossible for a Republican to win statewide in NM without significant Hispanic support, and it's pretty much impossible for Republicans to win a significant share of the Hispanic vote if they continue their anti-Immigration rhetoric.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-13 @ 23:25:41

Thanks for commenting again, albaleman. One of the nice by-products of you continuing to comment on my prediction is that it keeps my prediction up on the list when people check out "Most Recent Comments". I really appreciate that.

I'm sorry, but unless it's a runaway for Obama nationally (which seems pretty improbable at this point but isn't out of the realm of possibility, I suppose), the Obama/Biden ticket isn't going to be carrying the Gopher State by double digits. And the idea that the state has soured so severely on the GOP just isn't borne out by the polling.

The national campaign will be fought on national issues, even in Minnesota. Whatever happened in Saint Paul more than a year before the election will not have any significant or even discernable effect on the November 6, 2012, results.

Finally, Obama is an incumbent. As such, you should always look at his actual poll number, not his margin. The two most recent polls of the state (that PPP poll you keep citing is from May) indicate that Obama is at 45% with a six-point lead. That wouldn't indicate a double-digit victory, but would instead be indicative of an incumbent facing a rocky road and a very competitive race. I suspect that will be the case in Minnesota.

Again, I'm not predicting the GOP nominee will run away with the state. I'm only predicting that the state will be very competitive and that, if the GOP nominee defeats Obama by more than a 52%-to-47% margin, that nominee is likely to be the first to carry the state for the Republicans since 1972. I believe that outcome is as likely as your Obama double-digit victory.

But, there's plenty of time between now and then. Let's see how things unfold. For all we know, the economy will be robust, there'll be a dramatic reduction in the unemployment rate, and Obama will be headed for an easy victory. I doubt that will happen, but it remains possible. Under that circumstance, your double-digit victory for the President in Minnesota will look positively brilliant.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-11-14 @ 05:52:03

Although what happened in 2010 will not have a large bearing on 2012 it will have a bearing. One of the things is our independent party-usually around 8% on some races. They are not putting forth national candidates this year which will increase the DFL vote since Klobuchar is a runaway and even Dayton though not running is popular with the independents. It is the consistent polling of this group which assures me a 5% win against ROmney or more...the economy is better in MN than elsewhere in the midwest except our boom state North Dakota so that is less of an issue. What many have not mentioned is that a social issue is on the ballot - marriage amendment. This will heighten turnout (always high in MN) to be larger. Here is where the independent vote leans towards voting no and will probably give Obama a nod again as he is currently favored in polls in MN by this group. In fact the two polls show this issue either narroly defeated or narrowly passing...neither side at 50%...so what does this tell you. The only thing I think is that social issues tend to divide and push many towards the Dems who might be liberal GOP usually. It reenforces the 2010 atmosphere here in the state...

Anyway I am just as passionate as my MN twin only much older and therefore more forgiving of all views (well at least much older my friend from southern MN is pretty forgiving too)

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-26 @ 02:30:51

Thanks for commenting again, dnul222.

Just to be clear: you expect the marriage amendment to fail in Minnesota, right?

Obviously, I do not expect the same outcome. Indeed, I expect it to pass. And, I still Minnesota is going to be a closely contested state.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-11-26 @ 06:26:46

What do you think about the new Bloomberg speculation for third party run?

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-11-26 @ 11:53:01

"I'm sorry, but unless it's a runaway for Obama nationally (which seems pretty improbable at this point but isn't out of the realm of possibility, I suppose), the Obama/Biden ticket isn't going to be carrying the Gopher State by double digits. And the idea that the state has soured so severely on the GOP just isn't borne out by the polling."

How do you know he won't carry it by double-digits? And how is that not borne out by polling? SUSA is a Republican leaning pollster and the St. Cloud State Poll was of course a uni poll. So I think that by far the most reliable poll remains the PPP showing Obama with a 15 point lead.

As far as the shutdown having no effect on the 2012 results, that's really a strech. You see, after the 2010 elections, the center was clearly back with the Republicans. But the shutdown soured many of them on the GOP. It can be important for a party to have a favorable image in a particular state. In MN right now, the DFL is seen much more favorably than the GOP. Why wouldn't it be? The GOP is the party of the shutdown, while the DFL has popular leaders like Amy Klobuchar (and to a lesser extent Franken and Dayton).

Also, why do you necessarily expect the Marrige Amendment to pass? All the polls I've seen have shown it as a dead heat.

Last Edit: 2011-11-26 @ 12:20:58

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2011-11-26 @ 12:41:26

Well said my southeern MN friend!

By:me (I-GA) 2011-11-26 @ 16:41:25

surveyusa is even more accurate than ppp!

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-27 @ 03:49:00

Hello again, albaleman and dnul222. And me, thanks for commenting on my map for the first time.

I think the prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy is decidedly good news for Republicans, dnul222, and would likely make my current map appear tame in predicting the GOP’s performance. Bloomberg appeals to exactly the type of voter that Democrats have relied upon to win in 1992, 1996, and 2008. His candidacy would make the 1980 comparisons to the upcoming contest complete, with Bloomberg playing the role of John Anderson. Bloomberg’s appeal would be greatest in the Northeast corridor and the three Pacific coast states. His candidacy would put states normally out of reach to Republicans – like Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington – very much in play. He may ultimately have the same effect that Anderson did, causing normally Democratic states like New York and Massachusetts (particularly if Romney is the nominee) to fall to the GOP. If Bloomberg were to get in the contest as an independent, I would change my map to give the Republican nominee additional electoral votes, likely to handily surpass 400.

I think you're being a little selective (and decidedly out-of-date) in your selection of polls, albaleman. That PPP Poll of Minnesota that you so frequently cite was taken on May 27. I think that is just a tad stale. I might also note that at that time, less than four weeks after the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama's national approval rating as measured by the RealClearPolitics average was 53-to-43 positive. Is it really your contention that now, when his national approval rating has flipped to 44-to-50 that he still leads in Minnesota by double digits? That would be an extraordinary performance, to say the least.

It's not a stretch to say that the shutdown will have no effect on the result of the 2012 Presidential contest in Minnesota. It may be a rallying cry for the most zealous DFLers like you, but otherwise it's silly to suggest it will impact the Presidential contest. Think about it for a second. Other than someone who was already almost certain to vote for Obama, which Minnesotans are going to go to the polls saying to themselves, "I'm going to vote against the Republican for President because the Republicans wouldn't give Governor Dayton the tax increases he demanded to close the budget shortfall."? While I really appreciate the fact that you continue to comment on my prediction, your contention on this particular point borders on the absurd.

And again noting Senator Klobuchar's comparatively strong polling, that will have little effect on the outcome of the race for President. As for the Marriage Amendment, I believe it is likely to pass because, invariably, it does - regardless of polling. Same-sex marriage has not been instituted in any state by public vote. In fact, the opposite has been the case. States have amended their constitutions with great reliability since the issue began to surface early in the last decade. Only once, in Arizona in 2006, was an amendment (that was considered poorly crafted) rejected - and then only narrowly. Proponents of the amendment in that state reworked the language, brought it before the voters again two years later, and it passed handily. By the time Minnesota passes its amendment in 2012, it will be the 32nd state to do so.

I might also note that an effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine was repealed by the voters in 2009. That state's Democrat-controlled legislature had approved same-sex marriage, and its Democrat governor had signed the bill. Maine allows for the public to petition to have a law put to the voters, and it was. The law was defeated and repealed. In legislative elections the following year, both houses of the Maine legislature flipped to Republican control (the GOP gained 22 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate) and Republican Paul LePage won the Governorship.

Last Edit: 2011-11-27 @ 04:08:34

By:me (I-GA) 2011-11-27 @ 09:12:14

If romney is the nominee, bloomberg will take most of his support from obama. but if cain, perry, or bachmann is nominee, they might be too conservative for moderates who dont like obama, and being slightly more moderate than him, bloomberg could pick up these votes. id guess a 75-25 dem to rep vote pickup comparison for romney,65-35 for gingrich, and 60-40 for cain,bachmann or perry.

By:CR (--MO) 2011-11-27 @ 12:19:54

Have to agree with me and ryer on this one. Bloomberg would indeed take votes away from Obama. In fact I think he'd take many of the centrist voters in the country, especially with so many fed up with the current political parties. Personally I don't think any of the third party stuff will amount to much. We hear about it every election cycle. But its still fun to think about and every now and then it does make a big difference.

By:albaleman (D-MN) 2011-11-27 @ 12:38:26

"That PPP Poll of Minnesota that you so frequently cite was taken on May 27."

The more things change, the more they stay the same. PPP's May poll showed Obama leading Romney by 7, their current poll shows him leading Romney by 3. Relatively close. I think if you were to compensate the SUSA poll for its bias towards the Republicans (in MN), it probably shows Obama with a roughly 10 point lead. I think that's probably the likeliest result. A big part of his popularity here is that the economy, by far his biggest weakness, is actually fairly decent here (5-6% unemployment).

"Think about it for a second. Other than someone who was already almost certain to vote for Obama, which Minnesotans are going to go to the polls saying to themselves, "I'm going to vote against the Republican for President because the Republicans wouldn't give Governor Dayton the tax increases he demanded to close the budget shortfall."? While I really appreciate the fact that you continue to comment on my prediction, your contention on this particular point borders on the absurd."

What I said is not at all absurd. You are spinning my comment. The fact is, the image of the state GOP took a major hit with the shutdown. It effectively reinforced what DFLers have said about the tea party-influenced Republicans: They are extremely rigid in their ideology and refuse to compromise. This soured many Independents (who long for compromise) on the GOP. And popular politicians like Klobuchar reinforce a good image of the DFL. Rather I think your claim that undecideds will break heavily for the GOP (against Obama) is absurd. That effect may to a lesser degree exist if an Incumbent is running against lesser known candidates, but I think pretty much everybody knows who Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are by now, and they are unpopular as well.

"As for the Marriage Amendment, I believe it is likely to pass because, invariably, it does - regardless of polling. Same-sex marriage has not been instituted in any state by public vote."

First of all, Same-sex marrige is already illegal in Minnesota. That's a fact. This isn't a vote to legalize it, it's a vote to make it "more illegal" (and tie the hands of future legislators). And people's opinions are changing with warp speed on this issue, so you can't assume that past election results will have much bearing on future referendums. Nationally, a majority currently favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, and support for legalization is going up at the rate of several points each year. If that is any indication, I expect the marriage amendment will fail (though narrowly).

"In legislative elections the following year, both houses of the Maine legislature flipped to Republican control (the GOP gained 22 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate) and Republican Paul LePage won the Governorship."

That was 2010. The Republicans made big gains everywhere, mainly because Independents were in a "throw the bums out" mood (common in midterms even when the economy is solid) and too many Democrats didn't show up to the polls. Not to mention that LePage won with 38% of the vote because Democrats were split between Libby Mitchell and Eliot Cutler. There's no evidence the marriage proposal influenced the results.

Last Edit: 2011-11-27 @ 13:06:45

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-27 @ 14:16:29

Thanks for commenting again, me and ConservRep. Obviously, I largely concur with your comments regarding the potential impact of a Bloomberg candidacy. There just isn't a way for it to be a net positive for Obama.

I do think Bloomberg is much more likely to make the run if the GOP appears likely to nominate someone other than Romney. In the end, though, I think he's too chicken to make any bid. On a related point, why are so many of the prominent third-party candidates vertically-challenged? George Wallace was 5'7", Ross Perot is 5'5", and Bloomberg is 5'6". John Anderson is the only serious third-party candidate I can think of who isn't short. [Sorry, but Nader was never serious.]

Thanks for commenting again, albaleman. I would provide a detailed respond to your latest comments, but I can't find any of them on which I haven't already commented. I will instead employ my favorite response from Question Time in the British Parliament: "I refer the gentleman to the comments I made some moments ago."

By:me (I-GA) 2011-11-27 @ 16:12:50

I cant believe bloomberg is 5'6. He looks tall to me in news stories.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2011-11-27 @ 17:50:35

I'm guessing you've never seen any of his appearances on Letterman, me. Bloomberg is kind of a "pocket mayor."

A) If Milwaukee and Madison were somehow combined Wisconsin would lean more dem than it does.
B) I imagine that if MN's pop/Biz center was separated from the capitol/flagship university it would lean more GOP.
C)If Wisconsin’s capitol were moved to Wausaw or West Bend or something it would lean more GOP.

Thus, WI is probably 51% GOP vs. MN being tossup - lean Dem. I haven’t seen the breakthrough in MN that I've seen in WI, although it could happen any year now.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-07-22 @ 02:27:12

Thanks for commenting on my map, satyrday, BYUmormon, and AmericanNation.

I really enjoyed your Minnesota and Wisconsin comparisons, AmericanNation. I'm beginning to look at Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin as a special swing-state subset this year. I'm starting to thing they may all go in the same direction, with Iowa the most favorable to the GOP and Minnesota the least - but all three ultimately within 5 points of one another.

By:darthpi (D-PA) 2012-09-21 @ 02:16:19

Not sure if you're still active on here or not, but I think you may want to put out a new prediction sometime soon. Unless there is a drastic, paradigm-altering shift in this race in the next three or four weeks, I don't see any way that Mitt Romney could win Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or Michigan.

As far as I know, the only election where that has happened in the modern history of American politics was 1980, and let me assure you now, Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan connected with ordinary voters. Mitt Romney does not, and that is not going to change. And though I'm sure you'll disagree, Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter either (I don't see any references to Malia and Sasha giving President Obama advice on foreign policy, for one).

I'm not saying that that kind of shift is impossible, but I am saying it's very, very improbable. A smaller shift, where Romney eeks out a win, may be a little more likely, though I still don't think it will happen.

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-09-21 @ 07:15:15

The comment about Iowa, WI and MN is very correct, as they will be within 5% of each other but I have to say the lean Democratic at this time with MN around 7% WI maybe around 5% and Iowa around 3%....MN will be hard to get as the local GOP party is in disaaray and bankrupt literally. And Michelle Bachmann is having to campaign hard to retain her seat against a really good Democratic opponenet from my end of the district who will carry St. Cloud area which has 30% of the district..will he win I do not think so but it is close and he has the money for TV ads which are up and has been received well even by the tea party supporters of Michelle who like him and want him to run as GOP opponenet to Dayton next time.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-09-22 @ 04:42:36

Thanks for commenting on my map, darthpi and dnul222. While I greatly appreciate your input and your taking the time to comment on my map, I am not going to alter it yet. I'm going to wait at least until October 1 before making any alterations.

The predictions I post are never based on current polling, but on where I think the race will ultimately end up on Election Day. While that strategy does not always serve me well, I accurately predicted Rick Santorum to prevail in this year's Iowa Caucuses (and was alone in that prediction for months) last summer. I tend to stick with my predictions until there is information sufficient to alter them.

Actually, darthpi, the last time the Republican nominee carried Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Michigan was 1972. George H. W. Bush, however, carried Pennsylvania and Michigan in 1988. On another note, I enjoyed your reference to Amy Carter.

You actually seem a little less confident (albeit not but much, and perhaps only in tone) about Minnesota than you did when you commented on my map late last year, dnul222. Still, I am keenly aware of the deficiencies of the state's GOP. I will take that into account when I update the map (assuming, of course, I find changes necessary).

By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-09-22 @ 06:37:13

No I think you are right the situation will not substantially change until after the first debate in my mind on October 3rd...in fact I see more stability in the Presidential race than in the senate races which are flipping all over the place- some to the DEM advantage and a few to the GOP like COnnecticut...i can actually see the Dems taking Indiana while they lose COnnecticut...it will be that crazy in my mind as the voters want to punish someone but can not make up their mind yet...

You are right I feel Obama will get fewer votes in MN as opposed to the GOP than last time when he was ahead 10%, however, the lack of GOP presence is so surprising in some of the states as ROmney has posted his money on more lucrative targets. I think he will look back and regret that.

The one issue which will insure a large turnout here is the marriage amendmendment which cuts across party lines, has a strong anti vote with great advertising and some GOP backing to vote it down but some Dem backing to vote it in...I think this is the toss up in our state...I can see it passing barely by 45% no 50% yes and 5% not voting wehich in our state constitututes a no vote...

By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-09-22 @ 10:42:04

Ah, so someone predicted a GOP landslide before I did. (This July 2011 map compared with my Nov. 2011 map.)

At the time, I thought the GOP would nominate a conservative. I could not believe that, less than two years after the Tea Party gave the GOP the biggest midterm election victory in generations that the GOP would nominate its most ANTI-Tea Party candidate, the unapologetic architect of the prototype for ObamaCare.

Now, with Romney running with no other message than, "I can manage the welfare-warfare state better than Obama", I predict a closer race.

By:darthpi (D-PA) 2012-09-22 @ 13:49:41

@WhyteRain: That's an interesting comment about the "welfare-warfare state", specifically the warfare part. I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised how many people all across the political spectrum are starting to feel that something finally needs to be done about the military-industrial complex. It is one of the issues where I think a Republican might actually be more successful than a Democrat at fixing the problem (if the Republicans would nominate a candidate who had any interest in doing so, that is). I think a Republican might have more credibility to go to the Pentagon and give the generals and admirals a lesson in reality.

Clearly, though, Romney is not such a candidate. I doubt Obama is either, to be honest. The fact that he is still more-or-less defending the defense part of the sequester gives me some hope, but I get the feeling that's going to change after the election. At minimum, Congress isn't going to tolerate it.

I feel like we need to dramatically restructure the Army (and Marines), with a smaller active component and more focus on reserves. The only reason to have a large, active-duty standing army the way we do is so you can threaten to invade other countries on a regular basis, and I'm not exactly a fan of that. The Navy also needs to be restructured to have a smaller component for amphibious assault, as again, that's something you only need for frequently carrying out invasions. I don't think we need to change the blue-water component of the Navy quite as much, but the invasion part needs to be reformed.

I haven't really taken the time to look over the Air Force, but I'm sure there is room for reform there as well.

Last Edit: 2012-09-22 @ 13:50:03

By:FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-09-23 @ 03:24:50

This map is hilarious. Let's make fun of it after the elections.

By:aaron_m_1983 (D-MO) 2012-09-28 @ 20:19:35

I am curious....what does meth feel like mister?

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-10-08 @ 04:33:47

Thanks for commenting on my map, FiveSenses82 and aaron_m_1983. While your comments may be dismissive, I continue to believe that my map will reflect the outcome on November 6.

I can assure you, aaron, that I have no idea what meth feels like. My interactions with pharmaceuticals are limited to nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol.

I had planned to update my map at this point, making changes based on polling after the initial debate. Instead, I find myself even more confident in my prediction. So much to my own surprise, I will not at this point be altering this prediction, which I initially made more than fourteen months ago.

By:FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-10-08 @ 11:42:36

Come on man. You are making yourself out to be a moron.

Will you apologize for being so out-of-touch with reality when this election is over, and your prediction turns out to be a bunch of In The Conservative Bubble BS?

Even if Romney manages to pull this election off (unlikely), it will be nothing like this map.

I would like to hear from you, right now, that you will be willing to apologize for this map, if proves to be wrong. If Romney even wins one of the three states you are predicting him to win, MN, MI or Pennsylvania, I will let you off the hook from apologizing.

How do you come up with these numbers??!?! There are ZERO polls that give any credence to these predictions! You are just pulling this out of your B-Hole. Which is why you need to apologize when you are proven the moron which you are.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-10-08 @ 23:24:38

Despite the less than civil tone of your post, I appreciate you taking the time to comment once again on my projections, FiveSenses82.

I have no need to apologize, as my prediction is based in reality. In fact, even though it was made (and has not been altered) more than fourteen months ago, it is remarkably close to the one released last week by Drs. Berry and Bicker of the University of Colorado at Boulder (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university).

You will note that my projection matches theirs in 49 instances, varying only in how we see the outcome in Michigan and Nevada (and, since they only project statewide results, in Maine's 2nd District). And, you will note that they concur with my predictions of the outcome in Minnesota and Pennsylvania. So, I have no intention of apologizing for my map under any circumstances, anymore than I would ask you to apologize if Obama fails to carry at least two of three states you are projecting, Colorado, North Carolina, or Virginia.

While I cannot attest to Mr. Leip's motivations for initiating the prediction section of this site, I strongly suspect it was not for the purpose of having those making predictions berate one another when they disagree. I hope that when you comment on my map in the future you will do so with language intended to create dialogue instead of derision.

Last Edit: 2012-10-09 @ 00:19:26

By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-08 @ 23:40:45

ryer, forgive him; he just finished college. Lots of us who were geniuses when we finished college learned over the years that we weren't half so smart as our professors said.

I am one of those who, like you, predicted a year ago that Obama would get crushed. But at the time I never thought the GOP would nominate its weakest candidate -- with the result that I "gave back" to Obama several states in my latest, though still pre-debate, prediction.

I still don't think the GOP will carry MI, even with a native and a neighbor on the ticket. Other than that, as I said earlier, this looks like a plausible map.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-10-09 @ 00:16:37

Thanks for commenting on my map again, Whyte Rain.

As I have lived in a college town for most of my adult life, I am familiar with the potentially delusionary effects of completing degree work to which you allude. In my experience, while many graduates were not "half so smart as [their] professors said," they were, at least, smarter than their professors.

Today's EPIC-MRA poll was another encouraging sign for the Romney campaign's prospects in the Great Lakes State. Like Drs. Berry and Bickers, I have seen a few states as "on the bubble" for Romney-Ryan, Michigan among them. But, if I were going to pick a state where Romney is likely to outperform the expected performance of a GOP nominee, Michigan tops the list. I am reminded that Gerald Ford, the last Michigander to lead a national ticket, carried the state and ran well ahead of the expected Republican performance there (the state went for Humphrey in 1968).

I'm not so sure that the GOP nominated their weakest candidate. While I did not support Governor Romney for the nomination (I was a Santorum backer from the beginning of the cycle), he appears to have conducted a campaign that far exceeds the one I expected from the Republican nominee this cycle. I thought that the combination of overwhelming media bias and lackluster fundraiser would plague our efforts throughout the year. As it turns out, Romney has exceeded my wildest dreams in fundraising. That the Republicans are competitive and will not be overwhelmed (as they were in 2008) is an unexpected surprise. As for media bias, it is just a way of life for Republicans, so I do not expect any improvement there - ever. Being a Republican is like playing for the Boston Red Sox but having all your games covered exclusively by New York sportswriters. They may get the box scores correct, but the color commentary is murder.

I will, of course, continue to monitor the campaign's developments, following polling and the latest news. But, I am still amazed that despite all of the developments over the last fourteen months I still see this race as I did then.

By:Snigglie (R-AL) 2012-10-09 @ 12:05:21

It's interesting to me that predictions on this site that tend to largely favor Republicans seem to attract divisive and sometimes downright mean comments. So far I have not seen any of the maps with President Obama receiving over 400 electoral votes receiving the same treatment. Has anyone asked those posters to apologize when their maps turn out to be wrong?

Anyway, I feel like this map is still a possible outcome but I just don't see how Romney can win Minnesota or New Mexico for the same reasons that I don't see President Obama winning Arizona or Missouri. Romney only needs 270 electoral votes to win, so his campaign will concentrate on states that are most likely to get him at least that many. The same thing goes for the President's campaign. Based on that Romney will spend most if not all of his effort on states like Ohio, Florida, etc. I think it would take a major shift, which could happen if the remaining debates go like the first, for Romney to win states like Minnesota or New Mexico where he would not campaign otherwise.

However, if such a shift does happen and Romney wins Minnesota and New Mexico, I would think that Oregon as well as possibly Washington, New Jersey, and most of Maine could fall into his column as well. Such a landslide is almost historically unprecedented with 1980 and 1932 being the notable exceptions so I expect a close race.

By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-09 @ 14:56:05

During the GOP nominating race, I supported Gary Johnson. Still do. Even made a donation and got the sticker on the bumper.

By:ryer (R-VA) 2012-10-10 @ 02:11:16

Thanks for commenting on my map, Snigglie. Yes, it is disappointing that maps suggesting a Romney win exceeding 300 or so Electoral Votes attract scorn from other posters. But, the problem isn't entirely partisan. When I prepared my Republican primary map in early September of 2011, I received scorn - along with questions of my sanity - when I picked Rick Santorum to win the Iowa Caucuses and become Romney's chief competitor for the nomination. When I registered that initial map, I was the only one on the site making that prediction. Sometimes you pay a price for making bold predictions.

Frankly, I think it's fun explaining the reasoning behind my predictions (when the questions are sincere and not of the "are you on crack" variety). Along those lines, let me explain why I believe (as of this writing) Romney will carry Minnesota and New Mexico, and, conversely, why I believe that is more likely to happen than him carrying Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, and most of Maine (I have him winning the 2nd District).

I have always believed Minnesota was one of several states that were possible wins for Romney. But, I also believed that it, along with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the 2nd District of Maine, was a secondary possibility for a pickup. That means I never expected Romney to contest these states until very late in the cycle, relying almost entirely on the ground operation until polling showed that a sufficient investment might tip the state. Since the Obama campaign has not been contesting these states with advertising support either, they pose an opportunity for the Romney campaign if their resources are sufficient in the final two weeks of the campaign. If they aren't, I will likely alter my prediction. But right now, knowing how the Romney campaign has husbanded its resources (and with a slew of positive polling over the last several days), I'm sticking with my predictions on Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and the 2nd District of Maine. Two factors that keep Minnesota in the hunt: the (relatively) low cost of advertising and the presence on the ballot of a referendum on same-sex marriage. That advertising part is especially important, as there are portions of Minnesota that are already receiving a barrage of television ads, as the state has localities that are in media markets shared with portions of Iowa or Wisconsin. That makes the cost of a “bump” in Minnesota advertising that much more attractive to the Romney campaign.

New Mexico is a special case. In all likelihood, I would have put the Land of Enchantment in the Obama column months ago were it not for two factors: the state’s uncanny record of siding with the winner (it has only missed in 1976 and 2000, questionably so in the latter case) and the candidacy of Gary Johnson (WhyteRain’s candidate). There is an automatic (I believe faulty) assumption that the Johnson candidacy will draw disproportionately from Romney. I think his candidacy disadvantages Romney in some states and Obama in others. And, I believe New Mexico is one of the states where Johnson – despite being a former two-term Republican governor – is likely to draw more from Obama. As a result, I expect New Mexico, which is also a very affordable state in which to advertise, to come into play very late.

Now, why do I think those two states (along with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the 2nd District of Maine) are more likely to fall into Romney’s column than New Jersey, Oregon or the majority of Maine? Of these, I think the “Johnson effect” works to Romney’s advantage in the Beaver State. And, I’d put Oregon next on the list, a kind of “Tier 3” state if you will, for Romney. But, I’d rank it below Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in obtainability. I think New Jersey is out of the question for Romney simply because it is cost-prohibitive to place late advertising there (if he had picked Christie, I might feel differently). I also think that Washington is too high a hurdle. There’s a reason why Jim Farley once said that America consisted of 47 states and the soviet of Washington.

By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-10 @ 08:24:45

I've been saying all year that this race is like 1980 except that instead of nominating Ronald Reagan the GOP nominated G.H.W. Bush.

By:Snigglie (R-AL) 2012-10-10 @ 13:54:49

WhyteRain,

I don't agree with your assessment. What Romney is proposing for tax policy is very similar to what Reagan ran on in 1980. He wants to reduce tax rates while eliminating certain deductions.

I think you're a little hard on Romney in saying that he's not a conservative, but I don't agree. On fiscal issues, he was probably the most conservative of the major candidates aside from maybe Ron Paul. While Romney has changed some of the positions he has held in the past, I don't see any reason not to believe that the changes were sincere. Keep in mind that Reagan was a life-long Democrat who supported John F. Kennedy before he ran for Governor.